> On Mar 31, 2010, at 03:31, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 30, 2010, at 18:55, Xavier Noria wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can I tell to svn that it totally forget revisions < 3000 ?
> >>
> >> Doing so is a very invasive procedure. I don't recommend it.
> >> It's likely to cause more problems than it solves.
> >>
> >>> Those are very old and we could just get rid of them it
> >>> there was a chance that it solved the issue, it is a pity
> >>> we need to deal with explicit revisions all the time,
> >>> reflective merges...
> >>>
> >>> I don't know, perhaps around r2909 people did something
> >>> with the repo, upgrading, ... no idea.
> >>
> > What about doing an "svnadmin dump -r 3000:head" of the repository
> > starting at r3000, then load that in to a new repo and use that? I
> > believe it should dump enough info to build 3000 then increment from
> > there. However, I've never tried it.
> >
> >
>
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.rep
osadmin.maint.filtering
>
> Yes, that is the procedure I am talking about. It is very
> invasive, because it necessitates all users throwing away all
> working copies and checking them out again, means all old
> revision numbers (e.g. that have been recorded in issue
> tracker ticket notes, documentation, etc.) are no longer
> accurate, and does not necessarily result in space savings in
> the repository, which is what many people are looking for
> when they consider this procedure. (It may even increase the
> repository's size.)
>
I thought there was a way to persuade "svnadmin load" to keep the
revision numbers but on looking I cannot find anything. It seems to
renumber revs by default. However, I have a repository that I created
from a VSS conversion and used dumpfilter on and the revisions start at
282, so it must be possible somehow...
Working copies can be relocated (if you keep the same repo UUID) but I
believe that the renumbered revisions would still be a show stopper.
I'm confused now!
> Remember to keep the discussion on the list by using Reply All.
>
Dang, thanks for the reminder.
~ Mark C
Received on 2010-03-31 11:07:47 CEST